Working for a Boss, Promoting Yourself - A Question on behalf of “Anne”

<p>Anne should have politely declined to give the Bridesmaid her card for the simple reason that she was not representing herself at the wedding. </p>

<p>This has nothing to do with her experience and / or skill level and whether or not she has enough training to go out on her own. Instead it's all about whom she's working for on a given assignment. Even if she had been the primary or only photographer there - she was representing her boss's company at the time.</p>

<p>One good thing - She was honest and didn't lie or try to cover up what had happened. She admitted to the owner / boss the whole truth about the conversation and didn't leave anything out.</p>

<p>In my book her honesty and the fact that she wasn't in the bridesmaid's faces - saying - "Hey - If you like me, I'll do your weddings!" counts for a lot and I'd go easy on her this time. She'd get a talking to - that when you're shooting for me, you're soliciting business for me, not for you, and a reminder that the next time she is approached in this manner the response should be - "Yes, I do, but I also work for the person who is shooting this wedding and I'd be more than happy to work with you through him or her." If this happened more than once, it'd be time for the harsher - "Fire her!" statements that are popping up here.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>My second shooters are told only to give out their first names and to direct any inquiries at the event to me or to give out my card if asked for one. I feel stabbed in the back and really disappointed when a second shooter gives out their info at my gig. I spent time, money and got the job based on my own portfolio of work. When a client tells her friends that she loves her photographer, she is referring to me as we have already done an engagement shoot and the friends have seen my photos. The second shooter is only there working for me. I am paying them well and providing them with liability insurance under my company. I make sure they are treated right while they are at my events. I play fair. I don't try to steal gigs from these same people when second shooting for them. I know they would be really mad if I ever gave out my info on one of their jobs. I just would not do it. I have had to stop working with 3 shooters because they have misrepresented my gigs as their own. It hurts as I had grown to think of them as friends as well as business associates.:((</p>

<p>I have not had any dealings with the Studio or the Owners – I know them by name only. At the time I believed Anne sought my opinion, as much by chance as for any other reason. She knew my name and a bit about me, most likely because of the Workshops I have run. We started chatting over a drink: and as sometimes it happens, she just blurted it out and asked for my advice. This conversation with Anne happened Monday 2^nd Feb. The incident was the previous Saturday evening, 31^st Jan. I posted this thread within the hour, Saturday 7^th morning, after Anne telephoned me. <br>

<br>

Anne has not done any work for the Studio during last week, Monday 2^nd to Saturday 7th – that was intended to be so; it was not as any result of this matter. Anne was “on holidays” for a week prior to returning to University. Anne did not have a Wedding with the studio on Saturday 7^th. <br>

<br>

It seems to me, Anne mulled over my answer all last week; did not contact either owner in that time and then, apparently unhappy with my point of view and or her position, telephoned me and asked if I could post the facts on Photo.net, on her behalf, for a wider opinion. <br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

My answer to Anne, on Monday night was in two parts.<br>

<br>

The fist part was that she had carried her own business cards into a gig where she was the representative of Company X. I said that indicated preparedness, at the least; possibly premeditation to react to a situation should it arise; or, a blatant intent to follow a prescribed course of action. I disagreed, 100% with all those intents and all of those actions.<br>

<br>

The second part was comment on the action itself. I said that if I were in her shoes, I would have referred the prospect to the Studio which employs me for that evening – I would have carried their cards with me. And, I said, although she might NOT have had a Studio Business Card on her, the other Photographer (one of the owners) would have.<br>

<br>

Anne said, quite firmly, that she knew my situation was very different to her own: that I shoot Weddings for a Studio, just like her, BUT I had stopped shooting my own Weddings, I had sold my studio, and did not want to build my own set of Wedding clients, any more. I commented that is true, but I still do other work, privately, for which I am paid, and that was not the point at all. My view was that when I am employed, I am the representative of the Company or Business which is paying me: as their “Representative” I am “Responsible” 100% <strong ><em >TO that Company</em></strong> and also <strong ><em >FOR that Company</em></strong>.<br>

<br>

I went on to explain, given the exact situation, and if I did still do Weddings under my own name; I would have answered something like: “yes, but this Wedding is being covered by Studio X.” If asked for any contact details I would have given the Bridesmaid the <strong ><em >Studio’s Business Card</em></strong>. In these situations it would be most likely the Bridesmaid would have asked for my name – I would have given her my full name. I then went on, (in detail), to describe how, when I was doing my Photography Certificate I worked for a W&P Studio for about 18 months, every Saturday and most Sundays. . . and I detailed with examples how I handled similar situations, then. <br>

<br>

Anne thought about my answers, and my story, and we agreed that she was not necessarily comfortable with either. One comment from her was, “it is different now, business is far more cut-throat and it is really difficult to get ahead, especially with the economy and all the competition out there”. <br>

<br>

That is the essence of my conversation, and involvement until Saturday morning when I had the telephone conversation. During that telephone conversation I commented that a lot of valuable time had been allowed to pass and without any action from her, and I agreed to her request to post this thread on Photo.net. <br /><br /><br>

I believe Anne has been reading the responses, as they have been posted. <br>

<br>

Thank you all, for your valuable time and considered input.<br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

For those who desire to know outcomes, Anne spoke with me a few minutes ago: <br>

</p>

<p >Anne, at her instigation, met with the two Partners, today Sunday morning (8^th). The responses on this thread were about up to about here, just before that meeting:<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4151244"><strong>Doug Santo</strong></a><strong> </strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><strong></strong></a><strong>, Feb 07, 2009; 04:05 p.m.</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong><br>

<br>

At the meeting it was Anne’s intention to: apologize for her actions; commit not to carry her own business cards to a Wedding when she was employed; undertake to refer all enquires to the Main Photographer if she is asked similar questions at a Wedding in the future. <br>

<br>

I do not know the content of the discussion. <br>

<br>

I understand the “Wedding Photographer Partner was sympathetic”, (her quote). The other Partner simply said Anne had “played her hand and wished her well, and on her way”, (her quote). He refused to write any Reference and refused the allow use of the business letterhead for a Reference.<br>

<br>

Anne is very upset, and IMO bitter. <br>

<br>

She said that such a severe outcome is unwarranted, especially as, in her opinion: “even if I stuffed up big-time” (her quote) she had built the (Studio Portrait) business and she feels that was not taken into consideration. She said she made that point at the meeting and the more “severe” of the owners responded sharply: “that is irrelevant, you were PAID to develop the Studio Portraiture business – that was part of your job.” (her quote). <br>

<br>

It is my opinion that such a beneficial, regular, part time job in the industry (which she landed last year), will be difficult to come by this year. It is also relevant that there is a large practical / work experience component of her four year Degree Course, <strong ><em >which must be signed off by “an employer or similar person of authority”</em></strong>, before the Degree is conferred. <br>

<br>

Thank you again for all your responses.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>Every employee owes the employer a duty of loyalty. It is understood in the employment relationship. At least she did not sign a no-compete agreement as part of her employment contract which would have barred competition even on a completly friendly separation from this employment. Breach of that duty of loyalty is grounds for discharge, and, in this state, New York, would result in denial of unemployment insurance benefits because the discharge was for a fault ground. The rest is all personal relations with the employers, and the attempt to repair or negotiate the relationship failed. Perhaps that negotiation could continue at some later point, when emotions cool down, maybe with the help of an intermediary. It's a tough lesson learned the hard way. </p>

<p><em>I think that given the responses above that unethical is the correct term as defined by websters: <strong>unethical</strong> -</em><br>

<em></em><br>

If we are going to cite dictionaries to prove a point, lets not cherrypick only the parts that help. While I'm not going to use a credit card to look up the rest of Websters, many reputable dictionaries, if not most, feature definations such as, "Not <strong>morally</strong> approvable: <strong>morally</strong> bad", "system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system based on <strong>morals</strong>", "not conforming to agreed standards of <strong>moral</strong> conduct, especially within a <strong>particular</strong> profession", particular professions cited consistently as examples included only regulated industries which are known to employ by name "ethics" rules. Professional behavior such as "an ehtical lawyer" or <em> "</em>ethical medical practice".</p>

<p>So we don't digress from the question asked of us via William, we can agree that bringing business cards to a job you are doing for someone else is 'bad form'. My point is that it is not based on some lofty principles but the the situation described is inconsistent with the expectations of ordinary employers. </p>

<p>Anne was not being a bad person, she was being a bad employee.</p>

<p>What is there to debate? Is it ok to solicitate personal business that competes with one's employer while on company time using company resources? Of course not! What kind of business would tolerate that? The person would be fired on the spot!<br>

The fact that the clients like working with her is irrelevant. She can't have it both way - If she wants her own business, she'll have to stop getting paid by her employers and to put up her own money to open a studio.</p>

<p>I am going to say my piece which somewhat flies in the face of what I've read here. If she wasn't actively seeking business through her employer I see no fault in answering an inquiry verbally with the 'Yes, I do shoot on my own on the side' - the business card was crossing the line, but some form of contact info should be able to be given if the person was interested in her services.</p>

<p>Say what you will about employee loyalty, but at the end of the day we are not slaves, we are free people in a free country and should be able to pursue any and all interests freely. Working for an employer should never reduce those rights to better your own life, which, on a personal level keeps me from working at ALOT of places. Those obviously are my decisions and if things ever became tough monetarily I'd adjust my priorities.</p>

<p>I guess what I am trying to get across in simpler terms is the employer should never be more important than the employee, though that has been severely lost in this country, as evidenced by the numerous posts above that say you owe them unchecked loyalty. Of course contracts can lay out what is expected of employees but in her case it doesn't sound like such a contract was signed. </p>

<p>Now that I have read the outcome from William, I wish 'Anne' the best and I hope she severely cuts into her previous employers business, it sounds like they lost a good photographer. For them to not give her a reference even, making all her prior work null and void is unbelievable and just goes to show how much employers really think of their employees. When you're their little whipping boy, you're their best friend. Show a little ambition for yourself that doesn't further them and you're their worst enemy.</p>

<p>In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us on this forum think...it only mattered what the partners thought and apparently that thought was to end the relationship without providing any reference for future work.</p>

<p>Anne - Welcome to the school of hard knocks. We all go through it at some point or another. The best outcome we can hope for from it is a lesson learned and no impact beyond. After you get through the grieving process and beyond being bitter about it - perhaps you can see the point of view of the partners. You were there on their payroll. Period. You were supposed to be representing them. Period.</p>

<p>It sounds like you handled yourself with dignity and class before the meeting with them, which is saying a lot. It would have been very easy for you to lie and say that nothing was said or that the bridesmaid was an old friend or whatever. Again you were honest and truthful. To me personally, that means a lot and I stand by my earlier post. Everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then...to me it's when you make the same mistake a second or third time that action is warranted.</p>

<p>Now you must, IMO, handle yourself with the same dignity and class that they've made their decision to part ways with you. Go out, have a beer or beverage of your chosing and get over it. Don't criticize them publicly or privately (unless you are in a car, by yourself, with the stereo cranked!) - they are running a business and have a right to make decisions as they see fit. Badmouthing a former employer or boss will get you nowhere fast and will even cause potential employers to avoid you.</p>

<p>As William said - it's not going to be as easy to find a new job in the market today. The economy is much worse than anyone is letting on. But you will find another. Keep at it. Yes, photography is a cutthroat business - but don't cut your employer's throat in the future.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>For what it's worth, there's more than enough blame to go around here, and I would never do business with a studio which took the action described here after an inexperienced employee committed a minor offense and later apologized; their view clearly indicates that they fear competition, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that they have a good reason for that fear.</p>

<p>>"Say what you will about employee loyalty, but at the end of the day we are not slaves, we are free people in a free country and should be able to pursue any and all interests freely. "<<br>

You are free to pursue whatever you want for own benefits, as long as it is done in your own free time. In this case, the person is getting paid on a job working on company time. She was not a slave, she was getting paid as an employee and that comes with responsibities and work ethics.<br>

>"Now that I have read the outcome from William, I wish 'Anne' the best and I hope she severely cuts into her previous employers business."<<br>

Don't forget loyalty cuts both ways. Wait till she has her own studio and her employees pull the same trick on her. I am sure she'll write glowing references for those employees! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sun Dance - I wouldn't go so far as to say she 'pulled a trick' on them. I'm sure when she gets her studio up and employees under her it will be made very clear by her at the outset what her view on her employees promoting themselves will be, now that she has lost her job because of her actions. I have a feeling she will allow more than one strike before they're out.</p>

<p>It's not as though she was handing her cards out left and right to their clients. One client who had interest in her specifically brought the subject up. And she answered honestly. All employers should be ok with their employees being honest to clients. Few are.</p>

<p>ND, perhaps this actual scenerio is helpful for understanding the ethical problems of Ann's action:<br>

A photographer had an exhibition in a gallery. At the opening reception, one customer liked the work and asked the photographer for a business card. The next day, the customer visited the photographer's private studio and purchased several photographs directly from the photographer. The gallery found out about that and refused to show that photographer again.</p>

<p>In this example, as in Ann's case, the photographer takes advantage of others' substantial business investments (gallery/studio space rentals, customer contacts, advertisements, promotional costs & efforts) to pursue their private businesses, not only without benefitting the gallery/employer, but actually acting as their competitors. That is ethically unsupportable regardless of what the contracts say.</p>

<p>I think Ann blundered and it was a case where she had to suffer unfortunate consequencs whether fair or not. I could understand how the one partner was upset, however, I think given her status a a student/assistant and her apology, I think the guy was a little overboard in his punishment. Sure, I can see where he wouldn't trust her, and would want her to leave, but I wouldn't try to screw her carreer for that level of caper. Unethical, on her part? yeah, some. I think Nadine ran down the ethics pretty clearly, but it sounds like she was approached and just didn't think it through. This is overeaction, to not sign off on her practicum? That's a bit overboard. </p>

<p>Well, I doubt Anne was siphoning off so much business that it was like she was skimming the till at a casino or something. While I can see that there is a lot of good, standard advice here; really, this is a college kid who is probably about 19 years old or something and maybe for the first time in her life someone talked to her about her professional skills. Of course she didn't think it through! She's not some tycoon! She's a beginner! Not just in photography, but in life!</p>

<p>And, if I follow the story right, it seems like the partner who dismissed her was the aerial photographer. Is that right? Excuse me, but aerial photographer! Planes fly on two things: air and money. The partnership between an aerial photographer and a wedding photographer may be extremely profitable. How else could a photography business be able to afford to do anything with a plane? Then, to boot, it seems to me that every time I encountered aerial photographs in a commercial setting was when they were purchased by large engineering firms for not-too-tiny fees. Like, say you wanted to check up on your interstate pipeline or build a major highway or something. Hire an aerial photographer as part of the multi-million dollar project. They don't do snapshots of the company picnic from 10,000 feet.</p>

<p>Well, I bet Anne would singlehandedly pull the plug on that hypothetical highway construction project because the aerial photographer couldn't afford another 100g of hypo for the films because Little Miss Tycoon handed out that one business card. She probably gave it to Melinda Gates or one of the ladies from the Walmart family.</p>

<p>I bet she sure did learn about the photography business. If I were her, I'd be seething with competitive drive now that I've been fired after a potential customer on the job recognized the plausibility of some latent talent.</p>

<p>I know that all of that's my usual hyperbolic and harsh view; but, established successful, probably high-end business on one hand and Girl With Camera on the other. Power-wise, firing her sounds beneath an established practice. What is she going to learn from this? How to handle the situation better in the future, or that people she probably looked up to and admired as successful professionals would act petty at the slightest provocation? And, she's probably headed back to the sorority house right now, ready to tell all of her Going to Get Married Before I'm 25 Friends that the big time wedding photographer was nasty; but, that she has some competitive potential.</p>

<p>Sounds like the "Business Masters" just created a loss that could be far greater than one potentially misdirected client. The collegiate beauties of Alma Mater will probably have to schedule their weddings for when Anne is available. I recommend she start determining the overhead she's willing to spend on their photo packages. ;-)</p>

<p>I haven't read any of the responses above.</p>

<p>If I were Anne I would have given them a business card from the studio with my name on it. (Preferably a studio business card with my name printed on the front, if I didn't have those then I would have written my name on the back. I would also include a personal phone number.) I would have explained that I worked for the studio but they should definitely call the studio and request that I photograph their wedding.<br>

If the studio owners honor the request then everyone wins. If they don't, then they lose a potential client and Anne knows a bit about the owners.</p>

<p>I agree with the posters that who say the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The handing cards out left and right distinction has merit. A reprimand would have been in order. Anne, however, has learned a lesson about the business world and it is sometimes very tough and unforgiving.</p>

<p>The academic credentialing of work performed is the worst part in my view. One wonders if she could approach the more sypathetic partner for help. Does the strict partner have veto power over the other? Would there be a "ethical" issue by communicating directly to the more sypathetic partner to seek her work signoff? I will take the side of no as this is a business matter, one partner can judge whether the partershp relationship prevents or permits individual action and Anne has nothing to lose as she already has been given the shutout blacklisting treatment already. </p>

<p>I am surprised at the posters that defend Anne's actions, or make excuses for them. Judgement, character, responsibility, these are the traits on which Anne will be judged. These are the traits that Anne failed to employ. Maybe Anne's error was a minor one, but her punishment was a minor one as well. After all, Anne was fired. That's it. There is not a lot thought required. There is not a lot of deep meaning here. Anne screwed up and she paid for her failure. Now she should move on and learn from the experience. She should learn that judgement and character matter.</p>

<p>I've been in the wedding business one way or the other since 1981. One of the first things I was taught was you NEVER do what Anne did. It is the same as stealing. </p>

 

<p>I do think what Anne did was wrong, she represented herself on her employers time. But, at the same time, its obvious her bosses did not make her sign any type of ethics contract or go over with her what the company policy is regarding such circumstances. Being a 2nd year college student gives one a bit of leeway regarding such matters, being a business owner with employees does not afford you the luxury of making these kinds of mistakes. If your business is your livelyhood, you must take no chances and be ready for all situations. Even if you work at McDonalds, you have company policies and a written code of standards. Given how well her time has been at the studio overall, I would have given Anne a final written warning with the understanding that if it happened again, she would be terminated.</p>

<p><em>It is the same as stealing. </em></p>

<p>Good grief, Anne is not a thief. I'll say it again...<br>

Anne was not being a bad person, she was being a bad employee.</p>

<p>So.....<br /> One thing that has been overlooked here.<br /> Is Anne an <strong>EMPLOYEE </strong> or <strong>INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR</strong> ? This gets into Business Law (which is basically derived from ethics).<br /> <br /> Before you jump the gun and shout "she is obviously an employee" you really need to look at a few things first. <em>Note: the line between independent contractor and employee can can be pretty fuzzy sometimes.</em> <br /> <br /> From <em>West's Legal Environment of Business, Sixth Edition; Chapter 19; Agency, Determining Employee Status (page.461)</em> :</p>

<ol>

<li><em>How much control can the employer exercise over the details of the work? (If an employer can excercise considerable control over the details of the work and the day-to-day activities of the worker, this indicates employee status. This is perhaps the most important factor weighed by the courts in determining employee status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>Is the worker engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the employer? (If so, this points to independent-contractor, not employee, status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>Is the work usually done under the employer's direction or by a specialist without supervision? (If the work is usually done under the employer's direction, this indicates employee status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>Does the employer supply the tools at the place of work? (If so, this indicates employee status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>For how long is the person employed? (If the person is employed for a long period of time, this indicates employee status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>What is the method of payment-by time period or at the completion of the job? (Payment by time period, such as once every two weeks or once a month, indicated employee status.)</em> </li>

<li><em>What degree of skill is required of the worker? (If a great degree of skill is required, this may indicate that the person is an independent contractor hired for a specialized job and not an employee.)</em> </li>

</ol>

<p>If Anne is working as an independent contractor, I see nothing wrong with her giving her business card out, even while "on the clock" (because as an independent contractor she wouldn't be getting paid hourly.) If she is working as an employee, then she should have given contact information for the business, not her own.</p>

<p>Either way, it sounds like an honest (rookie) mistake. I wouldn't go as far to say that she was undercutting her employer, it isn't like she was contacting already booked clients and offering them a better deal or something like that. She simply gave her business card out (once). I don't beleive in burning bridges, but if her employer makes a huge deal out of one business card, then I would say he is a jerk and woulnd't want myself to be associated with him anyways.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After all, Anne was fired. That's it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did anyone say that Anne was fired?</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2223148">William W</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 07, 2009; 07:15 p.m.</p>

<p ><em>"The other Partner simply said Anne had “played her hand and wished her well, and on her way”, (her quote)."</em></p>

<p >That sounds like Anne was fired to me.</p>

<p >Anne's boss is a jerk! Fantastic!</p>

<p>Let's also not forget that this is only one side of the story being retold by a third party no less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anne's boss is a jerk! Fantastic!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Firing someone over a single business card infers "does not play well with others". Not the sort of reputation I would want to be associated with if I were looking to go out on my own. If he has that type of attitude it probably progresses past his relationship with his workers.</p>

<p>Not to mention, Anne was the "second shooter" and people were asking for <em>her</em> business card rather than his. It implies something about the "first shooter's" attitude when the guests and members of the wedding party would rather hire the second shooter than the business owner.</p>

<p>Just an observation.</p>

<p>Honestly, getting fired is probably the best thing that could happen to Anne. Hopefully it will provide her the motivation to begin booking her own clients. Best of luck to her.</p>